By BRIAN CLOWES
Part 3
(Editor’s Note: Brian Clowes has been director of research and training at Human Life International since 1995. For a footnoted copy of this four-part article, e-mail him at bclowes@hli.org.)
+ + +
Last week, we debunked three myths that those promoting homosexual “marriage” frequently use: “My gay marriage will not affect your heterosexual marriage,” “Straight marriage is in horrible shape, so why not gay marriage?,” and “Gay marriages are just as good for children as straight marriages are.”
Myth #4: No Slippery Slope. The fourth myth surrounding the homosexual “marriage” debate is that it will not lead to a “slippery slope,” ultimately terminating with the demise of marriage altogether.
When homophiles cannot answer an argument, they tend to resort to ridicule. Bill Maher sneered in his book New Rules that “gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant inter-species coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has extended the equal protection clause to salmon.”
However, events show that homosexual “marriage” is just another step on the journey to even more bizarre practices. The media and well-organized special-interest groups are already demanding that polygamy and polyamory be legalized. Waiting patiently for their turn are people who demand the legalization of incest, bestiality, and “intergenerational love,” which is the politically correct term for child sexual abuse.
We already see polygamists demanding the legalization of their lifestyles, backed up by huge feminist and civil liberties groups which include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Organization for Women (NOW). They in turn are supported by the corrupt media, which relentlessly praise and promote polygamy. In 2009 alone, ABC News, BBC, Showtime, and Newsweek featured long pieces praising polygamy and polyamory as “The Next Sexual Revolution.”
One step further than polygamy is “polyamory” or “polyfidelity.” One description of such a relationship is: “Sean has a wife. He also has a girlfriend. His girlfriend has another boyfriend. That boyfriend is dating (having sex with) Sean’s wife.” Polyamorists reject the “myth” of monogamy. Their groups might consist of several men and several women, bisexuals, or male or female homosexuals, and people can enter or leave this formless liaison anytime they want. Many scholars support polyamory as “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”
Polyamorists use exactly the same slogans that the homophiles have made so popular. The Polyamory Action Lobby (PAL) Manifesto says: “Polyamory often isn’t a choice; if people love more than one person, they can’t help it.” The PAL’s mottos are “Marriage for All” and “Love is Love.”
Groups like the Polyamory Society, Truthbearer.org, and Principle Voices admit that they see homosexual “marriage” as a steppingstone to their goals. After all, you can’t get to a radical conclusion in one huge jump; you must take one small step at a time. This is what the strategy of incrementalism is all about.
In the United States and Europe, several pairs of siblings have argued that they have a right to be married and have children. Once again, the mainstream press has treated these people as victims and has taken their side. The incestuous brothers and sisters also acknowledge that homosexual “marriage” is making their job a lot easier.
Then there is pedophilia, which has been supported by the homosexual movement for decades. The homophiles only stopped talking about it when they started getting serious publicity. The San Francisco homosexual newspaper The Sentinel said that “the love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. . . . Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships.”
More than a dozen major studies published in medical journals have found that the incidence of male child rape, or pederasty, among homosexual men is at least 20 times greater than among heterosexual men.
Academics are also now beginning to discuss pedophilia. A nationally recognized “sexologist” has predicted that NAMBLA and its fellow molesters may soon be demanding special civil rights, just as “mainline” homosexuals are doing today; he said that “pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raised the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”
Married To His Dog
Believe it or not, there is also a movement demanding that people be allowed to marry animals. They prefer the term “zoophile” instead of people who practice bestiality, a term that carries negative connotations.
“Zoophile” Philip Buble says he is married to his dog, and asserts: “Zoophiles are born with a true love for animals and have a lifelong commitment to their care. Myself and my dog Lady live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married….If Maine passes an anti-bestiality law it will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground. This helps no one and would force me out of state.”
As you can see, “zoophiles” use exactly the same arguments that proponents of homosexual “marriage” use; they were born that way, they are being discriminated against, their opponents are “fanatics,” they are victims, and true equality in marriage will never be achieved until they can marry their pets.
In summary, why are homophiles pushing so hard for homosexual “marriage”?
A number of them have revealed the true purpose of their activism. Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, wrote: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . . . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”
Does anyone recall being asked if we wanted the “very fabric of society” changed? The homophiles didn’t ask us because they do not care about us; they care only for themselves and their social objectives. One group said:
“The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalized sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up.”
So that is what it is all about. It is not about the rights of homosexuals to get “married;” it is about the eradication of marriage and the family themselves. Only then will the radical homosexuals feel free of the guilt that plagues them.
In conclusion, we have large, well-organized groups pushing for polygamy, polyamory, legalized incest, and child sexual molestation, and even sex with various species of animals. Every single one of these groups has said that homosexual “marriage” is an important step toward achieving their goals.
The “slippery slope” is a reality. No amount of homophile denial or mockery will change that fact.
Short Duration
Myth #5: Monogamous Homosexuals. The next myth we often hear from homophiles is that “homosexuals can be monogamous too,” which attempts to normalize homosexual “marriage.” But the homophiles know that this claim is false; homosexuals themselves used to brag about their incredible promiscuity before they became more politically prudent.
A large study done in the Netherlands, a society that is very tolerant of homosexuals and homosexual “marriage,” found that the average such “marriage” lasted only 18 months. Even during these brief “marriages,” homosexuals cheated on each other constantly, with an average of eight different sexual partners every year outside the “marriage.”
While 85 percent of married Dutch women and 75 percent of married Dutch men reported that they were faithful to their spouses, less than five percent of homosexual men reported that they were faithful to theirs.
Another study found that all homosexual relationships that had lasted more than five years had formally incorporated some provision for sexual activity with others. The authors stated that, among “married” homosexuals: “Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other.”
A 1997 study published in the Journal of Sex Research found that the average number of sexual partners for older homosexual men ranged between 100 and 500. And 10 to 15 percent of the men reported having had more than 1,000 different sexual partners during their lifetimes.
In addition to being pathologically promiscuous, homosexual relationships are extremely violent. To give them the status of marriage is to indirectly approve of the violence that homosexuals inflict upon each other.
Homophile activists complain about an “epidemic of gay-bashing,” but statistics show that the great majority of violence inflicted on homosexuals is perpetrated by other homosexuals. This plague has been recognized by the “gay community” itself for decades.
Homosexuals David Island and Patrick Letellier wrote a book entitled Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, and said that domestic violence is a deadly health problem for homosexuals.
In 2011, the FBI documented 1,518 hate crimes against homosexuals in the United States. By contrast, Island and Letellier wrote that “we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States…domestic violence may affect and poison as many as 50 percent of gay male couples.”
This means that homosexuals themselves are responsible for 99.7 percent of the violence committed against homosexuals.
Another study confirmed that homosexual relationships suffer far greater levels of violence than do married or cohabiting heterosexual couples. Just 0.05 percent of married men and 0.26 percent of married women have experienced violence at the hands of their spouses. But 11.4 percent of lesbians have suffered violence in their relationships, as have 15.4 percent of homosexual men. This means that lesbians suffer violence 44 times more often than married women, and homosexual men suffer violence 300 times more frequently than married men.
Because homosexuals typically live in households with a “revolving bedroom door,” and because their rate of violence is so much higher than that of people in natural marriages, they are even more unsuitable for children.
The World Is Unfair
Myth #6: “All Love is Equal.” Homophiles constantly appeal for sympathy, which leads to the next myth: “All love is equal. All we are asking for is equality and the elimination of unfair laws.”
Liberals label everything they don’t like as “unfair.” Regarding homosexual “marriage,” they think that if everyone else can get married and they can’t, it is “unfair.”
But the world is necessarily unfair in many ways, and much of this unfairness is beneficial to everyone. After all, is it “unfair” that some people cannot be airline pilots because their eyesight is bad? Is it “unfair” that some people with mental and physical illnesses can’t be police officers? Is it “unfair” that people who want to drive when drunk should not be allowed to do so? Is it “unfair” that a short, uncoordinated person can’t play on an Olympic basketball team?
Public policy should never be based on a vague feeling of “unfairness.” It should be based upon a person’s ability to fulfill the requirements of the position they want to hold or the activity they seek to perform. It should support the common good.
Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage any more than heterosexuals are — they simply have to marry a person of the opposite sex. It is obvious that, since true marriage must be both unitive and procreative, that homosexuals are simply not qualified to marry each other. This is biology, not bigotry. This is science, not theology. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is no more unfair than denying fathers the right to breastfeed their children.
They just aren’t qualified.
Whenever there are standards, there will be “unfairness,” because some people can’t meet the standards. But to get rid of all standards does not eliminate this “unfairness” — it just makes it unfair for everyone.
Homosexual “marriage” and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law should treat them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn’t.
Sometimes we hear the homophiles say: “All love is equal.”
This is just a nice-sounding but empty slogan, and it makes no sense at all.
Many people these days equate “love” with “lust.” They say “But we love each other!” Homosexuals relationships tend to be short and violent, and the “partners” cheat incessantly. This is not love, it is sexual addiction.
True love is durable. It is defined as wanting what is best for the other person; lust is wanting what I want, and getting it right now. Love is other-centered and lust is self-centered. So much of what’s called “love” today has nothing to do with love and everything to do with unlimited, promiscuous sex.
The term “marriage equality” is also a clever fraud. It implies that anyone who opposes homosexual “marriage” is against both marriage and equality. Don’t fall for this foolishness! We already have “marriage equality”; anyone can marry anyone else, except for a few impediments such as age, proximity of family relationship — or same sex.
If we deny a blind person a driver’s license, it is because he is not qualified to drive. We are not discriminating. But if we deny a blind person the right to vote, we certainly are discriminating, because he is qualified to vote. In the same manner, we are not discriminating against two men or two women who want to get married. They are not qualified to marry, since they cannot have children together and thus fail to fulfill the procreative purpose of marriage.
Infertility
One of the few apparently strong arguments for homosexual “marriage” is that if infertile heterosexual couples can marry, then the ability to have children cannot be essential to marriage. So homosexuals should also be allowed to marry.
This argument only makes sense if there is no difference between the infertility of a heterosexual couple and the “infertility” of two homosexuals.
All homosexual relations are by their very nature sterile, while heterosexual relations can be sterile through genetic defect, accident, or disease. In fact, we cannot even properly speak of the “infertility” of two homosexuals, because they cannot be fertile under any circumstances. The word “fertility” only has meaning if it describes a relative condition or quality. So we do not speak of the “infertility” of rocks or footballs. And, of course, we never speak of the “infertility” of homosexual couples.
In short, in one case an individual may be sterile due to no fault of his or her own; in the other case the type of relationship itself is always sterile.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress